Topic: Optimal bet size (and the advantage of small bets). (Read 566 times)

I think that i have some moments to correct.
We can`t talk about common gambler - i don`t think that the gamblers with 2 bets per week will plan his bankroll for a year at least. Such player will bet as much if he decide that moment.
But i can agree that 1/1000 bankroll is too small bet. It may be correct bet, but you need huge bankroll to feel the interest to such bets.

I think that in reality everything works a little differently (although of course there are always exceptions), I will assume that the average player makes about two bets per week (as I understand it, we are discussing bets), this will be approximately 10 bets per month, in a year this will be about 100 bets, I think this is the average for the majority of players.

As for the bankroll, the same average player is unlikely to deposit more than $100, and in this case no one will divide 1/1000 with such a budget, at best it will be 1/100 (that is, 1%) and in practice, players can bet 10% or even more if they are confident in the bet, therefore the risks are higher, the adrenaline is stronger and the loss has a greater impact on the bank. Players risk more than 1% per bet because in the end it becomes boring to play for $1, you will not be able to win anything significant and you will hardly worry about such a bet, which means you will not get the emotions that you will get if you bet 10% or more.

When i tried to make sport betting the main income, my betting strategy was:
1. One bet - 1/10 pf the bankroll.
2. Odds - higher than 2.5
3. Bet only after analyses
4. Get bankroll back - first of all.
5. After 4 - fix the bet size.

It worked. But i can`t say that it is good strategy for everybody. The main problem is to make good research for such odds. I could wait for a day or two days to make one such bet. If we make small bets - the prize would be really small. I tries to get stable profit, it means that i must make large enough bets and regularly withdraw money and i tried to increase  bankroll same time. So the result was about 1/30 of bankroll per bet.

In the strategy of small bets, the key element is the small bets themselves, approximately equal to 1/1000 of the bankroll. Of course, at the same time:
1. We have to place bets with a coefficient of about x2.
2. We must have some kind of strategy that allows most of these bets to have an advantage over the bookmaker's line.
3. This advantage in a stable form is likely to manifest itself over a very long distance (about 1000 bets)
   Of course, no one forces you to make 1,000 bets per year. Perhaps you will do so much in just a few years. It's just about not losing your money, despite the fact that you have a good strategy overall, but you don't take into account the possibility of adverse variance.
     If you do not have a reliable strategy that would allow you to have an advantage over the bookmaker's line with a coefficient of 2, then, of course, small bets will not bring you much benefit. But in any case, they won't let you lose your bankroll too quickly.

Buddy this is easy said than done, every gambler gambles for the money apart from those people that are categorizeed as gamblers who gambles for fun and there is this kind of mindset most gamblers has which is consistency sometimes I even feel if they think that gambling is part of investment, some gamblers dont see taking a break as an option instead they see it as an act of weakness not knowing that they are digging into some kind of stuff that aren't that realistic as they see it to be.
In the aspect of winning and wanting to win more from the amount you have won already, this character is common among gamblers, many gamblers exbit this character thereby failing to ccknowlege the fact that if you win a bet, it's not a criteria that you will win again within that period though sometimes it happens that people still win but we are really looking at the possibility of such happening.

You got a good advise in your conclusions, hope it could be seen as an advise thats much more good to adhere to by many gamblers that see chasing of loss as a good thing without considering the likely outcome.

There is alot of sense and meaning to what this writer said, it buttress the point of having a range of staking power like between 1-5% of bankroll and in fact, keeping it on a steady amount so that by random in 1000 bets, you have more chances of increasing your capital or gain than reducing it. If a gambler is competent to win more with 575 chances in 1000 games than 425 loses in same number of games then to make it a flat rate of bankroll can be a sure source and doing it as business with steady turn over rather than increasing your risk after you have won or lost out of anxiety or frustration For me I still favour smaller risk and more chances of winning and staying in the game than taking risk and losing all bankroll.

This a unique pattern but the 60 percent efficiency does not work for all betting strategy. Betting on favorite, ca be misleading to achieve the 60 percent efficiency. While its true that people gamble blindly on their favorite team, they are bound to lose most times more than their wins. I can say its more like a 40% efficiency because sometimes their favorite team mess up the game.

Both sides are flawed, the bookmakers and the casino. A gambler can luckily see a loop hole and make good use of that chance. This means 80% efficiency is possible.

Well I can sense some wisdom in your analogy as well as limitations, 1000 bets may sound reasonable to measure profitability, but it isn't easy to come by. For a careless gambler, he/she must've been liquidated before arriving at that number of bets and for a responsible gambler, it would take years to get to that mark.

This analogy presents gambling as an investment like Bitcoin which is going for a long term to be very profitable, but the last line in the quoted text is something in not very comfortable with which is treating gambling like a business. It shouldn't be so. In the end this strategy is still just logic and isn't applicable to everybody.  For some people the percentage could be more and for some it could be lesser.

You do realize at this point we have stopped talking about he amount gabled and moved o the actual problem of the said strategy, the way toa actually win those bets? The "author" talks about a 3% like it's nothing but in reality, it's actually that 3-5% that makes the whole difference between winning and losing all your money. I have yet to see someone who would be able to claim a nonstop streak of managing to keep 2x odds on a 60% winning rate, and if you would be able to do it, the stake you start becomes of little importance, you can start with 1 cent, because of 20% gain in 10 bets you're looking at doubling your money with 24 bets,  let's assume you do these bets during a week and by 9 months you have millions!

You're focusing too much on the result rather than the way to achieve that, and that is simply not doable!

This is very interesting but I honestly thought that there was going to be a much better golden nugget in there at the end. The problem with this is that the 60% is never guaranteed and who is to say that don’t you hit a shit streak and lose it all? It all comes down to having 80% Luck 10% balls to place the bets and 10% you have the money to wager - IMO

Still, it's still low risk: low reward or, high risk: high reward.
But I agree with the advantage of small bets, plus you will able to get experience of the game here, over time you will gain experience on the game or different teams playing over the time and important in gambling also, the more you stay in the game, the longer your capital stays, the more bets you can do and it will help you get more profits.

Exactly, people are overlooking this. Practically, if we follow this strategy, then it will take tons of months. Moreover, finding good games with sufficient odds to match the requirements is very hard. And in order to try this above method mentioned by the OP, you need a big bank roll. With a small bank roll, let's say 100 dollars, after a few months, hardly you will be able to make 105 dollars max. Profit is always equivalent to the risk taken in the bets, so the less risk you take, the more time it will take to make good profits.

I understand what you mean and I agree with you in some ways. Indeed, we will not be able to make a profit if we win 6 games out of 10 with a coefficient of, say, 1.5. After all, losing 4 bets out of ten will lead us to losing 40% of the bankroll (we assume that the bets fixed in size).
At the same time, winning 6 bets out of 10 with a coefficient of 1.5 gives us 90% of only the previous bankroll (6*1.5 = 9). Thus, with such coefficients, we will slowly lose money. This means that to win we need odds of around 2. Thus, we lose 4 bets out of 10 (or 400 out of 1000), but the remaining 6 winning bets with odds of 2 will bring us 6*2=12, i.e. 120-100% = 20% of winnings to the previous bankroll. More precisely, it is about odds greater than 2 (the author writes about 53% of winnings).
How difficult is it to win 6 bets out of 10 with odds of 2 - this is, of course, a separate question.


I wrote about 60%, but the author admits that the percentage could be much lower.
Here is what the author of the book I mentioned writes about this:

As far as I understand, we are talking about the fact that the general betting strategy has an efficiency of 60 percent.

That is, for simplicity, we assume that both outcomes have equal probability. If we assume that the odds are different, then the number of bets should change. For example, if we bet on an event whose probability is twice as high, then the number of bets is halved. And if we bet on an event whose probability is twice as low, then the number of bets doubles.

After all, the probability of winning is halved and in order not to drain the entire bankroll, the number of bets will have to be increased.

This is also a simplified scheme, since it does not take into account, for example, the bookmaker's reward.

I also do a single betting method like that, I expect the winning bets to be more than the losing ones, so I will still get a good profit. At least, when I decided to do a lot of single bets because previously I always made parlay bets and I often got the results when there was one match or two matches that lost in my parlay bet. With an incident likethat,  then I decided to make a lot of single bets, even  though at first it went according to plan because I got a lot of my winning single bets, but over time I found it difficult to get a good profit. The reason is,  because our bets will not always be according to plan because when there are  many  matches or bets that lose it willreally destroy  my balance. It's different when I make a parlay bet, even though I get a loss but at least it's only a small loss.

You're confusing two things, he probability of you winning and the amount you might win, one is variable the other one is fixed, with a gambler fallacy in the example in which you are destined to actually win after 1000 picks because of randomness, but in betting the problem is that you might now have actually those chances.
A 1.5 bet doesn't mean that out of x you're going to end x out of y, in sorts, these never happen, you might be more lucky or less lucky, and in other casino-based games it's useless since there the RTP will be your enemy.

You can make bets with 1 cents to keep enough bankroll and you will see that the results are nowhere near what they seem. I've done my experiment with under 1.5 bets, after 60 games I'm less than 6% in the green, nowhere to the math the bets would lead to by their odds.


Will it? Second, how will you pick your 60% chance games?
You make it sound it so easily that everyone would be able to make money by just betting a small amount yet look around, nobody managed to get this strategy working, because it is flawed from the start. you're confusing odds with the chance of winning

Im a long time bettor into sports specially on NBA and its true that with this kind of betting in regarding about small bets in terms of amounts then its not something that a bad thing either.
Minimizing loses will really be your main priority but we do know that not all gamblers or bettors does have that kind of patience. There are even to those people who do allocate a certain amont
then make a single or couple of bets into this aspect on which there's no way that they will really be trying out to make those kind of division and trying out to minimize as much as they can.
If you do have this kind of strategy and you are really seeing that you could be able to enjoy your betting and gets entertained then its not really that bad at all. If you are really just that
wanting or liking the way you do bet and on that bankroll management then it isnt really that a bad idea at all. Its your money then it will really be that up to you on how you do make out such bet.

Yes, this is a logical opinion, and it's subjective as well. Gamblers can do whatever pleases them but anything that is preaching the safety of the account should never be disregarded. For instance, 1 to 5% risk will give your bankroll a tough time to ruin, so if you are a good bettor, you might just be having fun while the income rolls in without stress. Because, what causes the most losses with sports bettors is the aggressive approach, they are too greedy and want to win everything at once, but gambling is not like that, it needs you to add good budgetary plan and proper money and risk management to it for you to be calm and be in control, not emotion of using big portion of your bankroll at once.

I got the gist of it, the answer to many bets per day was on the post above, which said that he can make ten bets per day on the NBA and have a good profit, for me it looks too complicated in the sense that after a few days of such an intense game the player can burn out.

As for the bet size, I agree that the smaller part of the deposit we risk, the easier it is to play, but even in this case it all depends on the size of your bank, one player's bankroll can be $1000 and he will risk a bet of $1, and another player's bankroll can be $10,000 and the bet size can be $100 (in this case, the bet will be 1% of the deposit - more often than not, this ratio is enough for safe play for experienced players).

We were talking about the odds because you say that 6 out of 10 can be winning, but in this case the size of the odds is important so that the winnings can cover the losses, otherwise if it is a small odds, the loss will be higher even with 6 winning bets.

You didn't quite get my point. Nobody forces us to make many bets per unit of time. The point is to simply use small bets of 1/1000 of the bankroll. In this case, your clear advantage will only manifest itself over a long distance, which corresponds to a large number of bets already played, conventionally this corresponds to the number 1000. This is a manifestation of the law of large numbers. Small bets are needed to protect against unfavorable dispersion. That is, small bets allow us to save the deposit when luck is not on our side. In addition, I wrote that we mean a strategy with a small win. The approximate ratio is that out of 10 bets, 6 are winning and they somewhat exceed the size of 4 losing ones.

In gambling we should have a more thoughtful approach so that we can make decisions that will not make us lose money in gambling, so it is very important for us to make decisions that are relevant in betting, because it is important to have a strategy that can minimise risks, so maybe starting from small bets and waiting for big opportunities is a safer way and can help reduce losses in my opinion, You may see it as a waste of time but I think it's important to look at the odds realistically and not blindly, but on the one hand I agree with some of what you said, because doubling down to try to recover losses is often risky and can lead to bigger losses, so it's important to always bet according to our financial capacity.

Making more bets does not mean having a better chance of eventually getting a profit, 10 bets a day is too much, and if you assume that you will play so intensively at least a few days a week, then personally I would get tired of it very quickly.

And here it is also important what is the average odds of your bets, if it is small, then 6 winning bets out of 10 may not be enough to cover the losses from the lost bets, so I would like to hear more specifically about the odds and the bet size. I don't see the point in playing with small odds, with small bets, otherwise it just turns into entertainment without the risk of losing something, but you will not be able to win anything significant either.

Yes, minimizing losses is very important. I have already written that even a good strategy has dispersion. In other words, for a strategy to show good results and be reliable, a large number of bets must be made. But at the very beginning, you may be unlucky. And even though you adhere to a good strategy, you may have a long series of failures that will kill your bankroll. And there will be a paradoxical situation: you have a profitable strategy, but this strategy killed your bankroll. It would be funny. If it were not so sad. However, there is another way that allows you not to reduce bets too much. You must greatly increase the predictive ability of your analytical research. However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to achieve.

Yes, that's right. To make a profit, you must simultaneously fulfill two conditions.

The first condition is not to lose your entire bankroll (budget for the game).
The second condition is that the amount of money you win must exceed the amount of money you lose. A large number of small bets allows you to fulfill the first condition.

The overall effectiveness of the strategy allows you to fulfill the second condition. As a result, a player using such a strategy will be able to make a profit in the long term.

Sounds like this approach is more about placing many bets rather than focusing on just a few, which makes sense if you think long-term. Honestly, 1,000 bets isn’t that much with this mindset. Like in the NBA season, I could easily make over 1,000 bets, averaging about 10 a day.

The goal is to keep a win rate of at least 57%. If we do that, we profit as long as we stick to good bankroll management. Both are key: without solid bankroll control, even a good win rate won't guarantee profit in the long run.

Not everyone has the patience for this type of betting system because it's going to take a lot of time, the only advantage you can have with this is minimizing your losses. Small bets are the only way to ensure that your losses are reduced. Staking low and waiting for a big odd to play out is a good strategy. Gamblers double their stake in most cases to recover what they have lost and most they end up losing more money. Gambling is not something you are certain about so take risk that are within your capacity.

The weak point of this strategy is that it is difficult to find such a large number of quality bets. However, I would like to write about this. Many bettors misunderstand the principle of 1000 bets. You should not focus on this number, you should focus on small bets. We need the number 1000 simply to illustrate the example that if your strategy is winning and the advantage is small (~ 57%), then this advantage will only reliably manifest itself on a large number of bets. Perhaps this will happen even in a few years. But the main advantage of low bets is that they allow you not to lose your deposit in the event that an unfavorable dispersion of your average value occurs.

Overall, I'm of the opposite opinion and observation. It seems to me that the longer you bet, the more likely you will lose. Such is the reason why betting to recover is futile. Instead of recovery, you'd have a bigger loss in the end. For me, profit comes early and not after placing a thousand bets. By that time, you're already losing.

Also, I don't find it logical that bets should be uniform in size. It's not as if all your bets have 50:50 chance of winning. If it were so, then we can have equal sizes of bets. But since you're betting on odds as low as 1.10 or 1.15 and odds as high as 3.74 or 4.00, then the size of your bets should also be adjusted.

If the winning whenever gotten doubles up so much that it covers for the losses then we can agree to saying it's an effective strategy so a 60/40 win rate wouldn't be regarded as a bad one but gamblers who always look and always make sure to maximize profit in rhia manner gets to make thw most of gambling with their strategy, my taught has always making sure that stake is at a 1:4 win rate so for every win it covers up for losses if there was any preceding the wins. I believe by the time you make four moves one should come through id you aren't lucky.

This image of a cigar box is a good illustration, but a candy box or a box of chocolates would even be more understable. When you mix 2 kind of things and you blindly pick some of them, you can get only one kind of them, despite picking a large number of them, because randomness doesn't exclude series, and hazardous order. They have same likelihood to happen than other combinations actually. It illustrates well how works wining and losing streaks at a 1:1 ratio I think.

In my case, I always prefer to choose many games and then carefully analyze each game and then choose only the games that I see that I have a good chance of winning. If, for example, there are 20 games and I only see that only 1 game is ideal to bet on, then I will only place one bet. I prefer to win a little but win, than to keep betting on 20 or 100 games but knowing that most of the games I am not very sure that I will win. Honestly, in my opinion, even if you create any strategy, in the long run the house always wins. That is why I keep making sports bets for fun. I do not put a lot of money on each bet because that way my bankroll, which is small, allows me to bet for a long time.

I think this can be said to be a strategy in gambling which allows the player to enjoy a long time of playing and also stand the chance of being luck more occasionally. Like the example you gave, although reverse can be the case in the sense that the player can still win 40 bet and lose 60. It can varies because every day is not usually the same.

Talking about bet size I think your talking about the amount you can afford to lose and that's why you mentioned from 1-5% which is quite a good decisions cause betting small gives you added advantages of wins alot times, tho you ought to know losses ain't exempted as well but when you bet with small amounts it keeps you on the safe sides, tho some gamblers think your betting amount works greatly in giving you bigger wins but then you ought to stick to betting small.

I noticed that when I take one match, I do win. I think all single matches that I have bet on this year, I won all. But whenever it is parley, I lose. I used $50 like 4 weeks ago to bet on parley, the winning amount was $370 or so. I lost the match. I have always lose parley as usual but there are some 2 matches that I won several time. But when it is getting to 3 matches or more, I do lose it. But be it a single match, I prefer to use small amount of money to bet. If the amount is getting high, it is not good also. I prefer to win small amount of money than to lose high amount of money.

One tricky thing about gambling and prediction is that when you are betting on a long games, while predicting the long games along the line you might get tired and start adding some of the games your mindset is not settled with. That is why in most of our game we play the first 5 games (or 10) will be in our favor while the other might be on red. Basically, this is the reason why I stake low on long games and stake high on shorter games so that I could be able to reduce the risks.
You are right but we still need fo understand that no odds is sure because anything can happen just the way odds can increase and reduce. However, the only thing that could make some gamblers to stake high on some games is only when they checked that the team and it's players are of a good performance and the opposite will not be in a good position to play with the stronger team.

Add it to what you have said, as sports betting, the method that is good for you might not good for another person. And it is not for big or small. It is very interesting when you use small amount to win big amounts. Some of us used $100 and split it to bet on 20 games and once one game cut then the ticket is over and the gambler lose all. While some used the whole $100 for one odd. The issue here is not even the size of the game but the strategy use because every gambler wants to win and not to lose. I have won like $300 with small odd. Many people lose  ig amount because they want to win big so they stake with big amounts.

Staking small and aiming high is a very good strategy that can reduce too much losses. A lot of gamblers chase higher rewards and this is the reason why they lose a lot of money. You aren't supposed to use more than five percent of your bankroll on each bet, no matter how tempting it might be to chase huge wins always stake low. You are not certain of the outcomea of any round so trying to double up your stakes to increase your wins is not advisable, instead use little amounts and continue aiming to get big odds, this strategy is the best.

I think that is the reality for many, the more they play the more they lose. But I think there are exceptions, there are too many people who gamble and many different styles... some people manage to make a profit with their skills in some games, and some people are just lucky.


I am sure it's a hard task to make 1000 bets on sports. If someone wants to reach 1000 bets faster they will have to bet on more games every day. On the weekend from Friday to Saturday, there are many leagues and matches, but again, to research and find all the right picks will take a lot of time. But let's say that someone can play between 10 and 20 games on weekend days and add other competitions on working days maybe between 10 and 20 games. That's 40 to 80 games a week, or between 160 and 320 games a month. Sounds like a full-time job to do it all…

It also helps in actually skewing the favors over you. Say that 57-43 chance that the book you quoted. With one draw of your entire bankroll, that's it. The odds stick and stay at 57-43 and you only get one pull. Split it into multiple smaller ones though, say two pulls, the odds increase by around 50~% ish afaik. 

Doesn't mean it's a guaranteed strategy to win though. It just "betters" the chances in the grand scheme of things. Yes, I know that the odds are independent of previous bets and having such mentality like this actually assumes that you have an infinite amount of money, but we're not trying to get a "guaranteed" win. We're just trying to get something better.

The percentage of winning bets will never be the same, every day it will be a different value, and more often it may even be that on one game day there will be more winning ones, but on another game day there may be more losing ones, it is like a successful and unsuccessful day for gambling. Therefore, it is necessary to keep records of all games, so that it is possible to calculate not only the final balance of loss or profit, but also to understand how much activity on each game day matters, if we make many bets on one day, is it good or bad for us.

I agree, this sounds very reasonable.

If your strategy is 60 percent effective, then it is pretty close to 50 percent effective. With a small number of bets, the probability of losing (despite the good overall effectiveness of the strategy) is very high. This is a big risk that is worth reducing. The more times you bet, the closer your actual probability of winning will be to the desired 60 percent. In this example, 1,000 attempts will be better than 100 attempts, and 10,000 attempts will be better than 1,000 attempts (all other things being equal).

The more interesting question, in my opinion, is how to measure the effectiveness of your sports betting strategy (i.e. how to determine that your effectiveness is exactly 60 percent)? Experimentally?

Theoretically if 60% winning bets should at least compensate the 40% lost bets then the odds must be around 1.70 for all those won bets, now any sports bettor do you think it is possible to find such bets in mass to apply this strategy?

To my little knowledge, this doesn't work in the real-world and also finding 1000 games that you can analyze and make a bet on isn't realistic either or you have to blindly select the games randomly which I feel not going to be any fun.

If I have a 60% winning percentage then I shouldn’t do small bets rather capitalize on my winning percentage by increasing my bet. We are talking about sports betting here which means the accuracy is already there unlike casino games that is pure random.

In gambling, You should play the least time if you have a higher percentage of winning since sports betting is skill based. This is not like slot games which you can enjoy each small bets since there’s a duration on every bet that it’s not instant result.

Winning 60% of our bets out of 100% from a single-day bankroll is probably high if we bet on a fixed amount. It can completely calculate the difference between our winnings and losses. Of course, few games can make up the 60% because it will be measured by the number of games played to the fixed amount used in betting. It doesn't need to have to be 60 games won and 40 bets lost.

This reminds me of the Kelly criterion principle when I was studying gambling in my early days. You can check it out, am not an expert in it though. My application in real life is based on what i understand.

This reality is for people who want to win, for people who want to have some good time it is better for them to slow things down and enjoy their time, still I believe that luck has a role to play here, going all in can make you lose everything too, it is just too complicated trying to figure which one really works out, in short I will prefer my own way and once my money is done for the day I quit and go do other things.

---

I can still remember when I was new to gambling, I've use both strategy of short timing and long timing, and the result doesn't matter, it just depend on what's around the corner, maybe I will win or not, what I can afford to lose is what keeps me going.

Another problem with it is that he may tries it and notice losses after several matches.

This is what I also think but one thing about casinos is that you can gamble at times with long time of consecutively losses in a way you will think that the casino is not having provably fear games but which might be wrong. The more someone gambles in casinos, the more the losses would be.

Actually, if you play continuously, you will definitely lose, even for a long time, but if we don't play too often, there is a possibility that we will be able to win, this also applies to online games that target bets or seek victory.

Personally I don't think that formula exists. If that was the case, more people would bet in sports for a living; unfortunately, I'm afraid that the only one who earned money with the book mentioned in the OP was the author with its sales. And I don't doubt that you heard stories, and maybe some of them are true (probabilistically there must be exceptions of people consistently winning), but it's not about the strategy, but about how lucky they are.

Apocollapse and stadus explained it perfectly. Moral: don't bet to find the perfect strategy, but just for fun, unless you find it fun trying to figure it out, and you can afford the "experiment".

Just because you're not winning now doesn't mean the method won't work. If you challenge yourself more in sports betting, you'll eventually find a strategy that works for you. But if you're just betting for fun, you’ll never find that formula for consistent wins or long-term profit. It’s not easy, I know, but I've seen stories of successful sports bettors, and I believe it's possible to succeed. We just haven’t found the right strategy yet. And those who don’t believe? They won’t find it either, because they’re not even looking.

Lots of people gamble in hopes of bagging hundreds of dollars but you are not going to get that by playing again and again. I have tried playing again and again and all it landed me was a loss of money. Mind you that I had already earned some profit at that point but again I lost it when I kept playing. So keep this in mind when you want to do more. If you want to keep gambling but can’t help but lose then I would suggest waiting for a bit. Gain your mojo back and strike

This is interesting but if you look at it in real terms, it not just about perceptions and opinions for strategies or winning or losing percentages but about what most gamblers experience, I found several gambling site accounts in sports betting have much larger percentage of losses than wins, even this happened to me myself, in several of my gambling site accounts all have higher losing percentage statistics.
It does seem easy to be able to have higher winning ratio and even beat the handicap line, but if apply it personally will feel difficult condition to achieve all that, moreover sports betting although it looks easier to increase opportunities also has some surprises that allow us to fail.

That's already incorporated in the odds, If you keep taking odds with a bit of juice, like -110 or 1.90 in decimal, and the outcome is truly 50-50, you’ll end up losing in the long run unless you’re hitting at least a 54% win rate. That’s just how it is.

True. However, getting a 60% win rate in sports betting is really tough. That’s why bankroll management is so important if you want to stick around long-term. Bookies don’t want us managing our bankrolls - they’d prefer we go all in, which is a bad call since hardly anyone can maintain such a high win rate.

Honestly, even 1% of gamblers can’t do it.

The reality is the longer you gamble, the longer you will ended up losing.

Casino takes commission when you win, they didn't give you the exact reward and risk ratio you take.

It's only possible if the gambler don't care with the sports and the teams/players, all they care is to reach the bets amount. I feel like the method looks unrealistic, we don't have a lot time just for gambling.

If someone already have a strategy with 60% winning chance at fair odds, they can be profitable without need to spread it to 1,000 bets.

@Julien_Olynpic If you can hit a 60% win rate, you could take odds like -110 since you only need 53% to profit in the long run. Hitting 60% is much better. If you're confident you can keep that win rate, profit is almost guaranteed, as long as you stay disciplined with your bankroll. A good rule is to bet around 5% of your bankroll per stake, but that depends on the size of your bankroll - this will ultimately decide how much profit you make in the long term.

Honestly, being profitable in sports betting is kind of boring because it’s a long-term game. You can't break your strategy by suddenly raising your bets above 5% just because you feel emotional, that would mess everything up. Stay disciplined, consistently hit that 60%, and you'll grow your bankroll in no time.

The problem with your betting method is the time.

Making 1000 sports bets isn't easy at all, that even can take months because each bet takes the match time, so, even if you decide to place multiple bets the same day, i don't think you could place more than 50 bets with those odds, but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe you could apply that method to another game that has fast bets like dice. In the past, i have used bots that let me place 20 bets/second, and even with that rate to place 1000 bets takes some time.

I will be writing about sports betting here, not casino games. Let's discuss what the optimal bet size is depending on the profit expectation. Most likely, different strategies allow different percentage values ​​of a single bet as a percentage of the entire bankroll. You often see the opinion that the size of a single bet should be from 1 to 5%. This is a logical opinion, but I came across an interesting argument that quite logically justifies lower bets.

To put it briefly, the point of very small bets is to not lose the bankroll in the worst-case scenario. Let's say the effectiveness of your strategy is 60%. That is, for every 100 bets you will have 60 winning and 40 losing ones.
1. It is logical that these bets will be fixed in size.
2. At the very beginning, the size of this fixed bet will be approximately 1/1000 of the bankroll.
3. 60 winning bets should significantly exceed the size of 40 losing ones.
The thing is that average values ​​are characterized by dispersion. And if on average you have 60 winning bets out of 100, this does not mean that within each hundred bets you will have exactly 60 winning ones. It may well be that at the very beginning the ratio will be different. And you will come to the ratio of 60/40 only with a very large number of played bets (about 1000).
Here is what the author writes about this in the book "How to beat the line of the handicap"